IN THE COURT FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS (FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CIPLA MEDPRO (PTY) LTD H LUNDBECK A/S LUNDBECK SA (PTY) LTD
|
|
- Toby Godwin West
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE COURT FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS (FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Date: In the matter between: Case Number: 89/4476 CIPLA MEDPRO (PTY) LTD Applicant and H LUNDBECK A/S LUNDBECK SA (PTY) LTD 1 st Respondent 2 nd Respondent In re: H LUNDBECK A/S LUNDBECK SA (PTY) LTD 1 st Applicant 2 nd Applicant and CIPLA MEDPRO (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT
2 2 SOUTHWOOD J [1] The applicant has brought two applications in terms of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules in which it seeks to vary the court orders in two urgent applications dismissing the applications with costs including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel. In each application the applicant seeks an order that the costs order include the qualifying fees of the respondent s expert witness, Dr. Roland Collicott. Both urgent applications related to South African patent number 89/4476 ( the patent ) and since the same issues arise in each application only one judgment is given. [2] The relevant part of Rule 42(1)(b) provides that the court may, upon the application of any party affected vary an order or judgment in which there is a patent error or omission. The respondent opposes the applications and contends that the Rule is not applicable because there was no patent error or omission; that the court is functus officio and cannot entertain the application and that the applicant is precluded from seeking the relief because of the long delay which occurred before the applicant instituted proceedings. [3] The applicant seeks final relief on notice of motion. Accordingly where there are disputes of fact in the affidavits final relief may be granted only in the circumstances set out in Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 634E-635C.
3 3 [4] The relevant facts are as follows: (1) In May 2008 the respondents launched an urgent application against the applicant seeking an order correcting errors in the patent and an interim interdict; (2) The applicant opposed the application and lengthy affidavits were filed. These included affidavits by a number of expert witnesses. One of the applicant s expert witnesses was Dr. Collicott an analytical chemist with experience in the pharmaceutical industry; (3) This court (Southwood J) heard the application on 12 and 13 May 2008 and handed down judgment on 20 June The court dismissed the application and ordered the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of the application such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel; (4) In argument the applicant s counsel sought an order for costs, including the costs of two counsel, but did not request that the court allow the qualifying fees of any expert witnesses. When judgment was handed down on 20 June 2008 the applicant s
4 4 counsel did not seek an order that the qualifying fees of any expert witnesses be allowed; (5) The respondents unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal against the judgment handed down on 20 June 2008 and once again no mention was made of any qualifying fees; (6) In August 2008 the respondents launched a second urgent application against the applicant seeking an amendment of the patent and an interdict; (7) The applicant opposed the application and once again lengthy affidavits were filed which included affidavits by a number of expert witnesses. The applicant again relied on an affidavit by Dr. Collicott; (8) This court (Hartzenberg J) heard the application on 5 and 6 November 2008 and handed down judgment on 12 November The court dismissed the application with costs including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel; (9) Once again, in argument, the applicant s counsel sought an order for costs, including the costs of two counsel but did not request the court to allow the qualifying fees of any expert witnesses;
5 5 (10) In December 2008 the applicant s attorney, Mr. Ball, instructed a costs consultant, Ms. Van Dyke, to prepare bills of costs in respect of the two applications and provided her with the relevant papers. Ms. Van Dyke prepared drafts of the bills and submitted them to Mr. Ball at the end of March The final bills were served on the respondents attorney on 23 June 2009 and it was arranged that they would be taxed on 18 August 2009; (11) During the week before taxation Ms. Van Dyke informed Mr. Ball that the respondents attorney, Mr. Whittaker, considered that the applicant was not entitled to the qualifying fees of Dr. Collicott, which were included in both bills, because the orders of court did not make provision for this. According to Mr. Ball this was the first time that he realised that there was a problem with the costs order; (12) The attorneys then agreed that the taxation of the bills would be postponed so that Mr. Ball could obtain urgent legal advice as to the applicant s remedies; (13) Mr. Ball instructed counsel to provide him with an opinion and in the mean time attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain the
6 6 respondents agreement to accept liability for Dr. Collicott s qualifying fees; (14) The applicant launched the applications on 11 December The respondents oppose the applications and have filed answering affdavits. [5] It is trite that an expert witness s qualifying fees will be allowed on taxation only if they are authorised by the court or if all interested parties consent thereto and that they will be allowed by the court if it appears to the court that it was reasonable for the legal representatives of the successful party to incur such expenses when they did so see e.g. Transnet Limited t/a Metrorail and Another v Witter 2008 (6) SA 549 (SCA) paras 15 and 18. It is therefore the duty of the party and/or the party s legal representatives to address the question of the qualifying fees of expert witnesses when the issue of costs is argued. [6] Whether or not, in these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to the relief sought is a matter of law. The relief sought can be granted in terms of Rule 42 or under the common law. While Rule 42 sets out exceptions to the general principle that once a Judge has made a final order which correctly expresses the true decision of the court, the court cannot alter that order because the court is functus officio see Tshivhase Royal Council and Another v Tshivhase and Another; Tshivhase and Another v Tshivhase and Another 1992 (4) SA 852
7 7 (A) at 862I - it has long been accepted under the common law that the strict rule that the final order cannot be altered can be relaxed under special circumstances so that although the main judgment cannot be altered it might be timeously supplemented in respect of consequential matters such as the award of the costs for which no provision is made see West Rand Estates v New Zeeland Insurance Co Ltd 1926 AD 174 at 176 and 178 (per Innes JA); at (per Solomon JA) and at (per Kotze JA); Estate Garlick v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1934 AD 499 at 502-3; Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Gentiruco AG 1977 (4) SA 298 (A) at 306F-308A. [7] In terms of Rule 42(1)(b) relief can be granted if the applicant can show that there was a patent error or omission: i.e. an error or omission as a result of which the judgment does not reflect the intention of the judicial officer pronouncing it and that such error was wholly or partly attributable to the court rather than the party affected or that party s legal representatives see First Consolidated Leasing Corporation Ltd v McMullin 1975 (3) SA 606 (T) at 608F; Seatle v Protea Assurance Co Ltd 1984 (2) SA 537 (C) at 540E-541D and 542B- 543C; First National Bank of South Africa Ltd v Jurgens and Others 1993 (1) SA 245 (W) at 246F-H; First National Bank of South Africa Ltd v Van Rensburg NO and Others: in re First National Bank of Southern Africa Ltd v Jurgens and Others 1994 (1) SA 677 (T) at 680I-681B and the applicant seeks relief within a reasonable time after the order concerned was made First National
8 8 Bank of South Africa Ltd v Van Rensburg NO and Others supra at 681B-C; Bakoven Ltd v GJ Howes (Pty) Ltd 1992 (2) SA 466 (E) at 471E-F. [8] In Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Gentiruco AG 1977 (4) SA 298 (A) the court dealt extensively with the common law position, the following parts of which are relevant - The general principle, now well-established in our law, is that, once a court has duly pronounced a final judgment or order, it has itself no authority to correct, alter, or supplement it. The reason is that it thereupon becomes functus officio: its jurisdiction in the case having been fully and finally exercised, its authority over the subject matter has ceased. See West Rand Estates Ltd v New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd 1926 AD 173 at pp176, 178, and 192; Estate Garlick v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 1934 AD 499 at p502. (306F-G) : There are, however, a few exceptions to that rule which are mentioned in the old authorities and have been authoritatively accepted by this Court. Thus, provided the court is approached within a reasonable time of its pronouncing the judgment or order, it may correct, alter or supplement it in one or more of the following cases: (i) The principal judgment or order may be supplemented in respect of accessory or consequential matters, for example, costs or interest on the judgment debt, which the court overlooked or inadvertently omitted to grant (see the West Rand case, supra). (306G-H) :
9 9 (ii) (iii) (iv) Where counsel has argued the merits and not the costs of a case (which nowadays often happens since the question of costs may depend upon the ultimate decision on the merits) but the Court, in granting judgment, also makes an order concerning the costs, it may thereafter correct, alter or supplement that order (see Estate Garlick s case supra, 1934 AD 499). The reason is (see pp503-5) that in such a case the Court is always regarded as having made its original order with the implied understanding that it is open to the mulcted party (or perhaps any party aggrieved by the order see p505) to be subsequently heard on the appropriate order as to costs. But, of course, if after having heard the parties on the question of costs either at the original hearing or at a subsequent hearing (as happened in the present case), the Court makes a final order for the costs, there can then be no such implied understanding ; and such an order is as immutable (subject to the preceding exceptions) as any other final judgment or order. (307G-308A) In the first passage quoted the court emphasised that the court must be approached within a reasonable time of its pronouncing the judgment or order. As pointed out in First National Bank of South Africa Ltd v Van Rensburg NO supra at 681E-F this is because it is in the interests of justice that there should be relative certainty and finality as
10 10 soon as possible concerning the scope and effect of orders of court. Persons affected by such orders should be entitled within a reasonable time after the issue thereof to know that the last word has been spoken on the subject. [9] In the present cases the parties argued the question of costs and the courts made costs orders. There is no suggestion that these costs orders did not correctly express the intention of the court or that the court did not consider what was argued or omitted to order what was requested. It is clear from the facts that the court did not consider the qualifying fees of expert witnesses because it was not requested to include such fees in the order. As far as Rule 42(1)(b) is concerned the applicant has not established a patent error or omission attributable to the court. As far as the common law is concerned the qualification to exception (iv) referred to in the Firestone judgment applies. The application must therefore be refused on these grounds alone. [10] A further reason for refusing the application is the long period of time which elapsed before the applicant sought the relief. Clearly it is the duty of the party s legal representatives to peruse the order when it is issued by the registrar to ensure that it correctly reflects the order made by the court. If the order omits certain relief (as the two orders clearly did) the applicant s attorney should have brought this to the attention of the court immediately and requested that the order be
11 11 rectified. The applicant waited from 20 June 2008 until 11 December 2009 (about 18 months) in respect of the first order and from 12 November 2008 until 11 December 2009 (13 months) in respect of the second order before launching the applications. This delay was primarily, if not solely, due to the fact that Mr. Ball did not peruse the orders when they were issued or, if he did, that he did not appreciate that the orders had to allow the qualifying fees of the applicant s witnesses if the applicant wished to recover those fees. It is not clear why it was necessary for Mr. Ball to obtain counsel s opinion before launching the application. The legal position is readily ascertainable in the legal text books. In my view the applications were not brought within a reasonable time after the orders were given. Order [11] The applications are dismissed with costs. B.R. SOUTHWOOD JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
12 12 CASE NO: P89/4476 HEARD ON: 24 May 2010 FOR THE APPLICANT: ADV. J.A. DU PLESSIS INSTRUCTED BY: Mr. Tim Ball of Brian Bacon Inc. FOR THE RESPONDENT: ADV. E.P. VAN RENSBURG INSTRUCTED BY: Mr. Whittaker of Spoor & Fisher Inc. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24 May 2010
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Heard at CAROLINA on 4 March 2002 CASE NUMBER: LCC 115/99 Before: Gildenhuys AJ Decided on: 15 March 2002 In the case between: COMBRINCK, H J Plaintiff and NHLAPO,
More informationIN THE COURT FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE COURT FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Date: 2008-06-20 Case Number: 89/4476 In the matter between: H LUNDBECK A/S LUNDBECK SA (PTY) LTD First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KWAZULU NATAL, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. DR345/11 In the matter between: THE STATE and MONGEZI DUMA SPECIAL REVIEW JUDGMENT Delivered on 16/8/2011 NDLOVU J
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 21199/13 CRAIG ALAN LEVINTHAL N.O. JEANNE TAUBE LEVINTHAL N.O. BRIAN NEVILLE GAMSU N.O. First Applicant
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 54/00 SIAS MOISE Plaintiff versus TRANSITIONAL LOCAL COUNCIL OF GREATER GERMISTON Defendant Delivered on : 21 September 2001 JUDGMENT KRIEGLER J: [1] On 4
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NUMBER: 4/95 ENSIGN-BICKFORD (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LIMITED BULK MINING EXPLOSIVES (PTY) LIMITED DANTEX EXPLOSIVES (PTY) LIMITED 1st
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) GOLDEN FRIED CHICKEN (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) NOT REPORTABLE Date: 2009-01-30 Case Number: 23619/2007 In the matter between: GOLDEN FRIED CHICKEN (PTY) LTD Applicant and SOULSA CC Respondent
More information[1] This is an opposed application in terms of section 51(9) of the Patents
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: Case No: Patent 2001/3937 B BRAUN MELSUNGEN AG B BRAUN MEDICAL (PTY) L TO First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationBIKEBUDDI INTERNATIONAL LTD. BIKEBUDI HOLDINGS (PTY) LIMITED Respondent J U D G M E N T
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: CASE NO: 3726/2011 Date Heard: 9 December 2011 Date Delivered: 13 December 2011 BIKEBUDDI INTERNATIONAL LTD Applicant
More informationJUDGMENT (For delivery)
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 28/13 [2013] ZACC 20 In the matter between: HUGH GLENISTER Applicant and PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MINISTER FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER
More informationIN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
More informationPOTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 11711/2014 POTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff And NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE Defendant
More informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
1 IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case Number: 31971/2011 Coram: Molefe J Heard: 21 July 2014 Delivered: 11 September 2014 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST
More information4th RESPONDENT. Coram: IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION. Case number: NCT/79160/2017/165. In the matter between: ASSA BANK LIMITED
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION Case number: NCT/79160/2017/165 In the matter between: ASSA BANK LIMITED APPLICANT and BEN SAGER (NCRDC: 2484) NONHLANHLA CORAH NXELE SIFISO LUCKY MTHETHWA
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 31498/2017 Not reportable In the matter between: SPHYNX TRADING CC PAVLOS KYRIACOU Not of interest to other
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 53/05 HELICOPTER & MARINE SERVICES THE HUEY EXTREME CLUB First Applicant Second Applicant and V & A WATERFRONT PROPERTIES VICTORIA & ALFRED WATERFRONT SOUTH
More informationTEFU BEN MATSOSO Applicant THABA NCHU LONG AND SHORT DISTANCE TAXI ASSOCIATION DELIVERED ON: 25 SEPTEMBER 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: Case No.: 2165/2008 TEFU BEN MATSOSO Applicant and THABA NCHU LONG AND SHORT DISTANCE TAXI ASSOCIATION Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY
Reportable: YES/ NO Circulate to Judges: YES/ NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/ NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES/ NO In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN AND STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) MICHAEL ANDREW VAN AS JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 10589/16 MICHAEL ANDREW VAN AS Applicant And NEDBANK LIMITED Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST
More informationREUBEN ROSENBLOOM FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD (Registration Number 72/000737/07) GERMAZE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT: 15 AUGUST 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: REUBEN ROSENBLOOM FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD (Registration Number 72/000737/07) GERMAZE INVESTMENTS (PTY)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO. (3) REVISED. DATE SIGNATURE CASE
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J317/14 In the matter between: CBI ELECTRICAL: AFRICAN CABLES A DIVISION OF ATC (PTY) LTD Applicant and NATIONAL UNION OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Plaintiff. Defendant
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE
More informationFARLAM, AP MOKGORO, AJA LOUW, AJA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU In the matter between C OF A (CIV) 4/2015 LESOTHO PUBLIC MOTOR TRANSPORT (PTY) LTD APPELLANT And LESOTHO BUS AND TAXI OWNERS ASSOCIATION ADV. BERNARD MOSOEUNYANE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. AAA INVESTMENTS PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant. PETER MARK HUGO NO First Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN Case No.: 2088/10 & 2089/10 Date Heard: 19 August 2010 Date Delivered:16 September 2010 In the matters between: AAA INVESTMENTS
More informationJUDGMENT. [2] On 11 August 2005, a rule nisi was granted in the following terms on an unopposed basis:
00IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J 1507/05 In the matter between: MAKHADO MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) AS RABAKALI and 669
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Appeal number: A1/2016
More information1 st Applicant. 2 nd to 26 th Applicants. Respondent
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) CASE NUMBER :J954/98 DATE:12.5.1998 In the matter of: FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION BILLY LANZAYE AND 25 OTHERS 1 st Applicant 2 nd to 26 th Applicants
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. JOHN BUTI MATLADI on behalf of the MATLADI FAMILY
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 42/13 [2013] ZACC 21 In the matter between: JOHN BUTI MATLADI on behalf of the MATLADI FAMILY Applicant and GREATER TUBATSE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY ANGLORAND HOLDINGS
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2010/50597 DATE:12/08/2011 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE SIGNATURE In
More informationTHE BODY CORPORATE, ELLA COURT JUDGMENT. [1] On 20 August 2008 the Applicants, the residents of some premises that are
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 07/22463 In the matter between: PE KHOZA AND 17 OTHERS Applicants and THE BODY CORPORATE, ELLA COURT Respondent JUDGMENT NOTSHE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007. In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007 In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN BEATRIX OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE First Applicant Second Applicant versus OOSTHUYSEN
More informationHIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 8 October 2015 & 3 February Opposed Matter. D. Ochieng, for applicants E. Matinenga, for respondents
THE MILTON GARDENS ASSOCIATION and SYRIL MUPANGURI MUPANGURI versus TECLA MVEMBE and CHAMPION CONSTRUCTORS (PVT) LIMITED and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, HARARE and THE SURVEYOR GENERAL 1 HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) WATERKLOOF MARINA ESTATES (PTY) LTD...Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) Case number: 64309/2009 Date: 10 May 2013 In the matter between: WATERKLOOF MARINA ESTATES (PTY) LTD...Plaintiff and CHARTER DEVELOPMENT (PTY)
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 162/10 In the matter between: THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE and SAIRA ESSA PRODUCTIONS CC SAIRA ESSA MARK CORLETT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY] JUDGMENT PHILLIPPUS JOHANNES DE BRUYN
Reportable Circulate to Judges Circulate to Magistrates YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY] JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER: 1961/2013 PHILLIPPUS JOHANNES
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
In the matter between: THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT NOT REPORTABLE Case no: 513/2013 ANSAFON (PTY) LTD DIAMOND CORE RESOURCES (PTY) LTD FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT and THE
More informationMEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: CA 337/2013 DATE HEARD: 18/8/14 DATE DELIVERED: 22/8/14 REPORTABLE In the matter between: IKAMVA ARCHITECTS CC APPELLANT and MEC FOR
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. Mediclinic Group Services (Pty) Ltd. Divine Touch Medi Clinic (Pty) Ltd. DECISION (Reasons and Order)
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: CT012OCT2017 In the matter of: Mediclinic Group Services (Pty) Ltd APPLICANT vs Divine Touch Medi Clinic (Pty) Ltd RESPONDENT DECISION (Reasons and Order)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE ST ATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN HEARD ON: 2 FEBRUARY 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE ST ATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case No.: 51092016 FIDELITY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Regional Magistrates Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN Case No: 703/2012 Plaintiff and H C REINECKE Defendant JUDGMENT BY: VAN DER MERWE, J HEARD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG ANDREW LESIBA SHABALALA
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTHAFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. Staar Surgical (Pty) Ltd
JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTHAFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case No: J1333/12 In the matter between: Staar Surgical (Pty) Ltd Applicant and Julia Lodder Respondent Heard:
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2494/16 In the matter between: NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS Applicant and GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA. Safcor Freight (Pty) Ltd. Companies and Intellectual Property Commission.
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT001Mar2016 Safcor Freight (Pty) Ltd Applicant and BPL General Trading (Pty) Ltd Companies and Intellectual Property
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: THULAMELA MUNICIPALITY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER: THULAMELA MUNICIPALITY Not Reportable Case no: 78/2014 FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT
More informationNORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG
NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO. 2554/2009 In the matter between: MALCOLM DESMOND BAILEY SIMON MONNAPULA GABORONE GIFT MPATLISANG LOBELO SAMUEL OTLA MANGANYI GWENDOLINE MOSETSANA MOTHIBA JOSEPH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN SOLAR MOUNTING SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 3717/2014 SOLAR MOUNTING SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD Applicant and ENGALA AFRICA (PTY) LTD SCHLETTER SOUTH AFRICA
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED... DATE... SIGNATURE CASE NO 2014/26048 PANAYIOTOU, ANDREAS APPLICANT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG In the
More informationIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the appeal between: Case No.: CCT 95/10 ALEXANDER GERHARD FALK FALK REAL ESTATE SA (PTY) LTD First Applicant Second Applicant and NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
More informationPART 8 ARBITRATION REGULATIONS CONTENTS
PART 8 ARBITRATION REGULATIONS * CONTENTS Section Page 1 Definitions and Interpretations 8-1 2 Commencement 8-2 3 Appointment of Tribunal 8-3 4 Procedure 8-5 5 Notices and Communications 8-5 6 Submission
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO 09/35493 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 26/02/2010 FHD van Oosten SIGNATURE In the matter between INSIMBI ALLOY
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number 90/2004 Reportable In the matter between: NORTHERN FREE STATE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY APPELLANT and VG MATSHAI RESPONDENT
More informationRULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE LABOUR COURT. as promulgated by. Government Notice 1665 of 14 October 1996.
RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE LABOUR COURT as promulgated by Government Notice 1665 of 14 October 1996 as amended by Government Notice R961 in Government Gazette 18142 of 11 July 1997 [with
More informationMARVANIC DEVELOPMENTS (PTY) LIMITED. MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG Case No. 06/21636 In the matter between: MARVANIC DEVELOPMENTS (PTY) LIMITED Plaintiff and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant MEYER, J [1] The plaintiff has
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 61/13 [2013] ZACC 47 DIRECTOR-GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS First Applicant Second Applicant and VIOLETTA
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG MARTHINUS JOHANNES LAUFS DATE OF HEARING : 28 OCTOBER 2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01 DECEMBER 2016
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO:
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Of interest to other Judges Case no: JS747/11 In the matter between: ROYAL SECURITY CC Applicant and SOUTH
More informationJennifer Ann van den Berg. Jan Albert Jacobus van den Berg. JUDGMENT Delivered on 17 July 2013
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matters of: CASE NO. 10598/12 Brian Lambert Kurz N.O. Mark John Perrow N.O. First Applicant Second Applicant and Jennifer
More informationHIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) (1) REPORTABLE: Electronic publishing. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3) REVISED...... Case No. 2015/11210 In the matter between:
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable CASE NO: 82/2015 In the matter between: TRUSTCO GROUP INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and VODACOM (PTY) LTD THE REGISTRAR OF PATENTS FIRST
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA KATZ FOOTWEAR (PTY) LTD WILLOW SAFTEYWEAR (PTY) LTD. DECISION (Reasons and Order)
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: CT013JAN2015 In the matter between: KATZ FOOTWEAR (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And WILLOW SAFTEYWEAR (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT Presiding Member of the Tribunal: Kasturi
More informationTHE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 1225/12 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 1225/12 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: SASOL POLYMERS, a division of SASOL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Applicant and SOUTHERN AMBITION
More informationJ J LAZENBY t/a LAZENBY TRANSPORT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1246/06 In the matter between:- J J LAZENBY t/a LAZENBY TRANSPORT Plaintiff versus M SAAYMAN N.O. Defendant CORAM: H.M. MUSI,
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
More informationINTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA 117/13 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION (SATAWU) FRANS PHOKOBJE First Appellant Second
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] The four applicants are sisters. Their late mother died on 24 December 1989 and
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA] CASE NO. 1279/2015 Date heard: 24 November 2015 Date delivered: 26 November 2015 In the matter between: THOZAMA KHONZAPHI NDAMASE
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED 08 SEPTEMBER 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Reportable Case no. 6802/2013 In the matter between: JOHAN DURR Excipient /Plaintiff and LE NOE NEELS BARNARDT CHARLES DICKINSON First
More informationCOMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. Third Applicant / Respondent
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No: 31/IR/A/Apr11 INVENSYS PLC INVENSYS SYTEMS (UK) LIMITED EUROTHERM LIMITED First Applicant / Respondent Second Applicant / Respondent
More informationPetroleum Products and Energy Act 13 of 1990 section 4A(2)(b)
MADE IN TERMS OF section 4A(2) Regulations for Arbitration Procedures under the Petroleum Products and Energy Act, 1990 Government Notice 93 of 2003 (GG 2970) came into force on date of publication: 29
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2010/00255 DATE:20/04/2011 NOT REPORTABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN JOHNNY BRAVO CONSTRUCTION CC KHATO CONSULTING ENGINEERS CC
IN THE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: JOHNNY BRAVO CONSTRUCTION CC Appeal No.: 2315/2014 Applicant and KHATO CONSULTING ENGINEERS CC Respondent CORAM:
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT 023/2005 PARTIES: Van Eyk v Minister of Correctional Services & Others ECJ NO : REFERENCE NUMBERS - Registrar: 125/05 DATE HEARD: 31 March 2005 DATE DELIVERED:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) Case No: 8550/09 Date heard: 06/08/2009 Date of judgment: 11/08/2009 In the matter between: Pikoli, Vusumzi Patrick Applicant and The President
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 11700/2011 In the matter between: THABO PUTINI APPLICANT and EDUMBE MUNICIPALITY RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Delivered on 15 May 2012 SWAIN
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SIZWE LINDELO SNAIL KA MTUZE IZAK STEPHANUS FOURIE VAN DER MERWE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 53/13 [2013] ZACC 31 SIZWE LINDELO SNAIL KA MTUZE Applicant and BYTES TECHNOLOGY GROUP SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD DEIDRE VANESSA LE HANIE
More information/SG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EAST LONDON CIRCUIT
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no. JR 2422/08 In the matter between: GEORGE TOBA Applicant and MOLOPO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
More information[1] This is an appeal, brought with leave granted by the court a quo
Republic of South Africa In the High Court of South Africa Western Cape High Court, Cape Town CASE NO: A228/2009 MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT NOEL GRAHAM ZEEMAN PAUL CHRISTIAAN LOUW N.O.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2015/5890 (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED.... 23 May 2016 SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH. CASE NO: 4305 / 2017 Date heard: 26 June 2018 Date delivered: 31 July 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4305 / 2017 Date heard: 26 June 2018 Date delivered: 31 July 2018 In the matter between JUNE KORKIE JUNE KORKIE N.O. JACK
More informationCOMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In an application to compel between: COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: CR162Oct15/ARI187Dec16 WBHO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Applicant And THE COMPETITION COMMISSION GROUP FIVE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG AMCU OBO L.S. RANTHO & 158 OTHERS SAMANCOR WESTERN CHROME MINES JUDGMENT: POINT IN LIMINE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS 2015/14 & JS 406/14 In the matter between AMCU OBO L.S. RANTHO & 158 OTHERS TEBOGO MOSES MATHIBA First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO: P 322/15 In the matter between ANDILE FANI Applicant and First Respondent EXECUTIVE MAYOR,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LESOTHO HELD AT MASERU C OF A (CIV) NO.18/2016 In the matter between:- LESOTHO NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT and TSEKISO POULO RESPONDENT CORAM: FARLAM,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY) NAFCOC NORTHERN CAPE NAFCOC INVESTMENTS HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY) In the matter between: CASE NO.: 6/2013 Case heard: 18-01-2013 Date delivered: 27-03-2013 NAFCOC NORTHERN CAPE NAFCOC INVESTMENTS
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: 03/03539 DATE:26/10/2011 In the matter between: TECMED (PTY) LIMITED MILFORD, MICHAEL VOI HARRY BEGERE, WERNER HURWITZ,
More informationNon-existent plaintiff Dealing with misdecriptions in citations. By Fareed Moosa
Non-existent plaintiff Dealing with misdecriptions in citations By Fareed Moosa In HUV Cape Spice v Hotspice Sauces CC (WCC) (unreported case no 22227/2010, 10-5-2011) (Louw J) the respondent, Hotspice,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO:83409/2015 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Applicant. Respondent
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 48226/12 In the application for admission as amici curiae of TREATMENT ACTION CAMPAIGN NPC SONKE GENDER JUSTICE NPC First
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 11/44852 DATE:07/03/2012 (1) REPORTABLE: / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... In the matter between: BARTOLO,
More informationIN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT001APR2017 PWC Business Trust APPLICANT AND PWC Group (Pty) Ltd RESPONDENT Issue for determination: Objection
More informationNELSON MANDELA BAY MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT. [1] At issue in this application is whether a fixed contract of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION PORT ELIZABETH Case No: 1479/14 In the matter between NELSON MANDELA BAY MUNICIPALITY Applicant and ISRAEL TSATSIRE Respondent JUDGMENT REVELAS
More information